Prince William current events 17: May 9 - June 4 2007 - Page 6

**Warren** · #**101** 05-24-2007, 11:00 AM

Discussion of Trust Funds has been moved to the Trust Funds thread.

cowarth · #**102** 05-24-2007, 02:07 PM

The palace is angry that Matt Laurel pried into the princes private lives. What did they expect Laurel is a journalist?

avrilo · #**103** 05-24-2007, 02:50 PM

Why is Clarence house so upset¿ Dont they trust the Prince¿.... I mean William could just give him a diplomatic answer or not answer at all, but if he did, I think that is is choice. I would like to think the Prince at this point in his life knows what he tells to the press and what he doesnt

cowarth · #**104** 05-24-2007, 02:58 PM

The palace should not try to run William's life, he is almost 25.

Sister Morphine · #**105** 05-24-2007, 04:12 PM

Matt Lauer isn't some tabloid journalist, he's really well-respected. William is more than capable of either answering or not answering questions that are asked to him by a reporter. Had it been someone from the Daily News, I could see the palace wanting Wills to keep his mouth shut. But Matt Lauer? Come on.

Avalon · #**106** 05-24-2007, 04:23 PM

Quote:

to the alleged anger of some in Clarence House towards an American journalist....
It's claimed that NBC anchorman Matt Lauer has upset Prince Charles's Press Secretary, Paddy Harverson, by ignoring a request that he not ask William and Harry about their private lives.

Allegged... Claimed...
You know, I have certain distrust for articles, who use both these words in the same article.

How on Earth can we know the Clarence House was upset about something? Did they announce it? Did Matt Lauer announce it? Or did Prince William?

As far as I am concerned, this is just another article making something out of nothing.

kjrn · #**107** 05-24-2007, 04:53 PM

They are supposedly upset because typically when someone interviews the princes, they submit a list of questions for approval. Then the person doing an interview is supposed to stick to those questions. Questions about girlfriends and Diana's death are typically not approved questions. Matt went ahead an asked a question that had not been approved. NBC is hyping the interview by "revealing" that Matt asked about Kate. Who knows what answer William gave. He might have ignored it or answered briefly. I doubt he gave a 10 minute explanation about the break up. Apparently CH wants to have the whole question deleted because they don't want her mentioned. That's my summary of the probably 1/2 dozen articles that have been published about it. CH is "hopping" mad at Matt and NBC not William.

Avalon · #**108** 05-24-2007, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kjrn

They are supposedly upset because typically when someone interviews the princes, they submit a list of questions for approval. Then the person doing an interview is supposed to stick to those questions. Questions about girlfriends and Diana's death are typically not approved questions. Matt went ahead an asked a question that had not been approved. NBC is hyping the interview by "revealing" that Matt asked about Kate. Who knows what answer William gave. He might have ignored it or answered briefly. I doubt he gave a 10 minute explanation about the break up. Apparently CH wants to have the whole question deleted because they don't want her mentioned. That's my summary of the probably 1/2 dozen articles that have been published about it. CH is "hopping" mad at Matt and NBC not William.

You said said it yourself Kjrn, suposedly.

I have not seen any reliable source claiming the Clarence House is 'hopping mad' because of the question - it's simply not worth it.

The newspapers seem to lack headline-news. And they certainly will try to make out something, which will connect Prince William and Kate's names - it sells well.

Sister Morphine · #**109** 05-24-2007, 05:04 PM

Why would Clarence House be angry anyway if William even uttered her name once? If Matt Lauer asked William about the break-up and he politely said, "I'd rather not discuss Kate right now", what is there to be angry over? I think they need to loosen the leash they have on him.

kjrn · #**110** 05-24-2007, 05:48 PM

I used the word supposedly on purpose because I believe these newspapers pretty much write whatever they think will sell. Don't let the truth get in the way of news.

This isn't about William. This apparently is standard procedure. They do this for a majority of interviews with the RF. Charles goes through this too. They know what questions are coming there way and they've already got an idea about what to say. The interview with the three of them last year had pre chosen topics. Diana and girlfriends were topics they were not supposed to be asked about. I would think that other famous people would want this too. You don't word something in the wrong way and have it analyzed over and over and over again as we try to do.

**Empress** · #**111** 05-24-2007, 05:55 PM

Well, if Lauer strayed from the approved questions it is doubtful that either he or NBC will be getting another shot at any member of the RF anytime in the near future. We call that biting off your nose despite your face. Ah well, I am sure if he really did ask these questions, he probably got an earful from the network, because they at least will recognize the damage that he has done.

cowarth · #**112** 05-24-2007, 06:35 PM

This mess has nothing to do with William, it is all about the palace being mad at Matt Lauer for asking a non approved question. Why do we keep hearing William's name in this mess? Why is William not allowed to speak for himself to the media?

Sister Morphine · #**113** 05-24-2007, 07:48 PM

If Lauer asked a question that wasn't on the "list" and William politely declined to answer and they moved on to other questions that were approved, then Clarence House getting up in arms makes no earthly sense. If William didn't get offended and handled it maturely (which I'm sure he did, if it happened) then I see no point in saying anything to anyone.

The network or Clarence House reps jumping down Lauer's throat for no good reason is just dumb. If William got annoyed and demanded they say something, fine. But if he didn't.....this just looks silly. He's a 25 year old grown man, he's the future King of England...I think he can handle getting asked a question about an ex-girlfriend without his minders and keepers getting their knickers knotted over it.

Luv2Cruise · #**114** 05-24-2007, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sister Morphine

Matt Lauer isn't some tabloid journalist, he's really well-respected.

Errr...not by me he's not. He's an aging pretty boy who got lucky. Journalist he's not.

David Gregory, NBC White House Correspondent, for example, should be asking William the questions in that interview. If you don't know him, check him out when he would eat Scott what's his name's lunch in the White House press room.

Then Paddy Haverson would REALLY have something to be pissed about. Matte (pun intended) Lauer is better suited to what he does best: looking good while asking William about his aftershave lotion.

Meanwhile William needs to grow a pair and stop having his wetnurse running foul for him. (Yeah, I'm still pissed at him for what went down --or not-- with Kate.)

Case in point about David Gregory. I just read a news report about a Bush's response to Gregory's question today at the White House:

"President Bush told NBC reporter David Gregory at a Rose Garden news conference today that terrorists are a "threat to your children, David." The President's reaction came after Gregory asked him why he should be considered a credible source on terror intelligence."

Sorry to be off topic, but Gregory is a working reporter who will ask the questions, not Lauer.
I see him all the time at a sandwich place I frequent a block from the White House where I work. I can't wait to see him again. LMAO

cowarth · #**115** 05-25-2007, 01:07 AM

The media is just making hype for the up coming interview.

William should stop being treated like a child, he is a grown man.

Sister Morphine · #**116** 05-25-2007, 01:15 AM

That's what a couple of us have already said.

kpusa1981 · #**117** 05-25-2007, 02:12 AM

What does Prince William actually say about Kate? Does anyone even know? The truth is no one knows until the interveiw airs.

kjrn · #**118** 05-25-2007, 02:28 AM

But that little piece of information did exaclty what it was supposed to do. People are now curious about what William might or might not have said. They will want to watch the interview to see what is in it.

Don't know much about television other places but in the US you see little promos for news stories and shows all the time. Usually you are disappointed because the actual story was nothing like what the promo suggested.

acid_rain3075 · #**119** 05-25-2007, 02:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kjrn

But that little piece of information did exaclty what it was supposed to do. People are now curious about what William might or might not have said. They will want to watch the interview to see what is in it.

Don't know much about television other places but in the US you see little promos for news stories and shows all the time. Usually you are disappointed because the actual story was nothing like what the promo suggested.

when is this thing going to air? or has it already?